Jane Axtell [9:12]:>>> Astrological content is derived from case histories
and from>>> historical studies. Over time patterns are become
aphorisms. Ptolemy>>> is worth reading since the material holds up well
in modern case>>> studies.

I agree that astrological content _should be_ derived
from case historiesand historical studies, but it isn't now, at least not
by the overwhelmingmajority of astrologers, and hasn't been in the past.
As for Ptolemy'smaterial holding up well in modern case studies, you've
got to be kidding.Do you have any instances to cite?

Roger Satterlee [9:14]:>> I don't think the ancients had any kind
of enhanced insights, nor do I>> think we should assume their legendary special knowledge
has been lost.>> But I especially question the objectivity of isolated
astrologers doing>> informal "case studies"...:)"

I, too, doubt that they had enhanced insights or
special knowledge thathas been lost. And, yes, most astrologers who do
case studies don't knowwhat they're doing. That doesn't, however, mean
case studies can't inprinciple lead to important insights.

Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu [9:15]:> For me, there is little more uncomfortable than the
repeated calls of> astrology to 'objectivity' and 'case histories', as
though it were> bidding to enter as an outcast, the upper class Club
of Social Sciences,> which themselves have long struggled for "Science"
status. It feels some> thing of the putting on of make up, so as to be like
an older half> sister who is disproportionately esteemed. When in
fact there is a> heritage of astrology (and of the epistemology upon
which its endurance> has been based), that is divergent from the Empirical
Sciences> themselves, which now reign as the authors of Truth.
Astrology is, and> always has been an interpersonal act (as might be argued
of all> knowledge), if only the example the presentation of
a reading to a King,> and its acknowledged receipt. Its authorship relies
upon the> triangulation of the knower, the seeker and the observed,
and the> effacement of the position of the "knower" that science
has in its model> attempted to obscure (hiding the fulcrum of its own
power), under the> auspices of "Laws" which the seeker can apply un-intercessed,
and the> resulting 'objectivity' undercuts the primordial creation
of meaning> that Astrology has throughout the millennia preserved.
"Case histories"> when taken as "proofs", given their narrow samples,
become nothing more> than the projection of the astrologers Intent, and
at best become> concretizations of their wisdom, at worst the charade
of 'Science', a> mimicking of method so as to attain the status of Truth.
It is rather> the sum of the repeated acts of interpretation, as
they are recorded and> find resonance within the context of the language and
the Culture of> their perpetuation, that determines the Truth of astrological> correspondence. For instance, if Chiron echoed throughout
its initial> decades as the figure of the 'wounded healer', yet
now is coming under> further transformation, this is not the 'objective'
correction of> 'subjective' surmise. It is the Evolution of its meaning
in the context> of the addition of discovered bodies in competition
over the scrapes of> signification that once were neatly divided between
much fewer factors,> and the enveloping need for systemized application.
The 'observed' has> produced a rupture in the Archetype, and no doubt Chiron
and others will> undergo repeated changes in the future, carried forth
from the genealogy> of meaning already in place. The Science that astrology
sometimes> aspires to is nothing more than the Mythology of our
age, and> Mythologies are of the realm where Astrology sometimes
holds court.

The image of astrologers putting on scientific
dress to impressrecalls my own discomfort with it, and your observation
that the casehistory is "the projection of the astrologer's intent"
accuratelydescribes, in my opinion, the way case histories are
typically done.However, that's not the only way to do them, and wanting
to be acceptedis not the only reason to learn from science. I
think we should bemore scientific, not for the sake of approval but for
the sake of a moreeffective astrology. Case histories can be a valuable
resource if weknow how to use them. Astrologers normally use
them to illustrate howastrology works, whereas they should be using them to
_discover_ howit works. If there actually are correspondences
between earth and theheavens, it seems to me the soundest way to learn about
them is to_observe_ them.

Planetary movements are regular. Anything
that corresponds to themshould also be regular. We can use biographies
(and histories) bylooking for something that recurs regularly at the same
intervals andtimes as a given configuration. If we notice a
rhythm that averagesa little over seven years between recurrences, Saturn
should be in thesame degree area and quadruplicity each time. If
it's late mutable,say, and natal Mercury is late mutable, the rhythm we're
seeing is the"effect" of Saturn transiting hard-angle Mercury.
That observation,recast as a prediction, will apply in all specifics only
to that person,but should bear a general resemblance to the Saturn/Mercury
rhythmin other people's lives. _That_ similarity, and
not the particularsof one individual's Saturn/Mercury rhythm, is what we
can say aboutthe Saturn/Mercury rhythm _in general_, for any given
person.

For those who deny the relevance to astrology of
case studies andempirical observation in general, I wonder what you offer
in its placeas a means of discovering astrological correspondences
while at thesame time differentiating between sense and nonsense.
Rog, Kevin, howdo you know that your interpretive statements are anything
other thanself-deluding b.s.? Can you explain how symbolism
can filter outerrors and nonsense?

Scrub and scrub at the lens and no matter how hard that
you clean, youwill not clean away the fact that it is a lens, and that
as a lens itdraws into focus some elements and leaves out of focus
others. All'facts' are poured through a lens before they reach us.
It is the'distortion' of the perceived so as to attain a state
of meaning. Whatyou may describe as self-delusional symbolic interpretation,
I wouldcharacterize a group-delusional symbolism, -an ideology,
an(imagelogic)- and the 'truth' factor is resonance. As
an idea, method orfact carries forth in time and its vibration lasts, its
truth isattested to, but it is not a truth as you seem to imply,
that is thehoped for removal of the glass through which we look.
It is the concertof meaning with itself. The ideas and methods of Ptolemy
are not morecorrect than what has occurred after them, but the endurance
of theirbase tone, the structure of that astrology has proven
itself 'true' byresonance. Beyond that one cannot speak, unless one has
recourse todivine revelation, which can only be accepted or rejected.As to the concept of chart comparisons of famous people
and transitanalysis, I have reservations about this latest passion
of objectifyingthe chart and the rectification craze that is associated
with it. Mylord, they have rectified the chart of Christ to the
minute whose monthof birth is even contestable! The problem with rectification
pervadeseven the simplest assessment of the famous. Without a
person to personencounter with the client, it is impossible to know the
meaning of aspecific event and therefore how it would be reflected
in transits. Asmuch as we might be inclined to suppose that we know
that a marriage ora blockbuster movie or a birth of a child means to the
overall life of aperson, these persons are souls and very often, as with
all of us, whatothers think is significant is much less so and otherwise.
Such trollingfor significance ends up with reified meanings that have
taken us quitefar from the living human being and the vitality of our
art. We will endup with a net full of shiny fish to be sorted, cooked
and canned andvery little understanding the beauty that lies below
our not so humbleboat.All of this fretting about self-delusion and science
as its corrector tome is avoidable when we turn away from the abstraction
and face theclient. As long as methods are grounded in self-consistent,
regularlyapplied practice, whose boundaries keep the astrologer
from introjectingtoo much of his or her consciousness, meaning will be
brought forth froma depth that can only be described as transpersonal.
The analysis of thegrounds of methods is significant because often it can
trace thepreservation of a 'truth' over the ages as it has taken
on variousforms, and hence tap us into the resonance of a larger
and deeper whole,but in the end we still hold in our hands a lens, the
glass throughwhich we are compelled to look.

In originally proposing both case studies and an examination
of thetradition in astrology, I had no intention of becoming
scientific in the19th century manner where too simple causation falsifies
experience.

You are correct that cases can be misleading. That's where
conversationbecomes valuable.

An example is the too urgent search for the homosexual
marker. Overand over an astrologer will find some indicator common
to everyhomosexual client. Over and over it will turn out that
the clients alsoshare a vocation or avocation which is primary. The "marker"
forhomosexuality has so far always failed when applied to
other people'sclients or study base of charts.

(Unlike psychologists and sociologists and speech therapists,
astrologersfind that removing names from case studies is not a sufficient
protectionfor confidentiality. Thus we are driven to trust each
other when we saythat our cases do or do not confirm the pattern up for
discussion.)

Not very long ago, Neptune was considered a marker for
addiction. Thiswas operationally useful to astrologers working with
addicts because itobjectified the behavior patten -- placed it "out there"
away from corepersonality. Unfortunately this correspondence did not
hold up. Every nonaddict also has Neptune in the birth chart as well. And
astrologers usingNeptune as an indication for addiction could not point
to anydifferentiation from one addict to the next that was
based on the configurations of Neptune.

We suspect that the addictive personality is a genetic
subset of humans andno more visible in the birthchart than whether the subject
is a volcano, apuppy, or a human.

When Chiron was first discovered, symbolic astrologers
rushed to publishtheories of a wounded healer, and with effort, the well-read
astrologer mayfind something of that kind. However astrologers with
cases see Chirondifferently. A reinterpretation is being discussed out
of sightbut those of us who do cases are pretty much agreed with
the results. It'sjust a matter of wording now -- and who has the time
to publish.

The nature of the publishing business determines what
gets into print -- andfor astrology this has meant mass market simplicity.
Over the long centuriesthe very few books kept in use tend to be those of proven
value. But doesit work today in our context? So those of us who actually
practice, whethercommerically or in private settings, use the three tools
of the tradition,the case study, and conversation.

Is this perfect? No. Is this enough? Not always. Are we
misled? Sometimes.

Are we cosmic people? Yes. And perhaps if astrology only
asserts, againstcommon sense, that we are all cosmic people, then it
has some value.

Without being scientific, astrology can also be practical
in the hands ofthe skillful. Or so they tell me. It's saved a situation
for me a few times, bysuggesting situation redescriptions and behaviors that
otherwise would nothave occured to anyone.

Astrology is the applied cosmology of every age. It's
interesting that itmight be more.

Jane Axtell

> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:33:33 -0500 (CDT)> From: Dale Huckeby

> For those who deny the relevance to astrology
of case studies and> empirical observation in general, I wonder what you
offer in its place> as a means of discovering astrological correspondences
while at the> same time differentiating between sense and nonsense.
Rog, Kevin, how> do you know that your interpretive statements are anything
other than> self-deluding b.s.? Can you explain how symbolism
can filter out> errors and nonsense?>> Dales

>> For those who deny the relevance to astrology
of case studies and> empirical observation in general, I wonder what you
offer in its place> as a means of discovering astrological correspondences
while at the> same time differentiating between sense and nonsense.
Rog, Kevin, how> do you know that your interpretive statements are anything
other than> self-deluding b.s.? Can you explain how symbolism
can filter out> errors and nonsense?>> Dales

Dale, I've come full circle and once again think that
the "interpretivestatements" are indeed self deluding b.s. However,
I still seem to be Leo,with a burdensome Capricorn Moon...and whatever astrology
*is* remains asecret...:)

hello,this is interesting, the views about sexuality in thebirth chart. i agree with your observations,especially the part about other peole'scharts/friends/clients.my group, rainbowstars (yahoogroup) is conducting asurvey about sexuality. the first results we hope
topull out of this study will be about BDSM.(bondage-desclipline,sado-masochism)although the survey is designed for everyone.

Your description of the use of 'case study' seems to fit
better perhapsthe phrase 'personal experience' or even 'personal analysis'.
When theterms are conflated the tinge of scientific fact appears
to come to yourconclusions. These studies are not so large, nor their
techniques ofexamination uniform enough to warrant the sense that
fact has beenarrived at. Secondarily, when you present the brief results
of 'casestudy' you seem only to state what they don't reveal,
i.e. the marker ofaddiction, homosexuality, the presence of the wounded
healer. What thearchetypes of Neptune or Chiron will not do is 'mark'
a certain state,because that is working the equation from the wrong direction.
They willillumine that state when it is discernable. When dealing
with an addict,understanding the nature of the 12th house, Pisces and
Neptune ingeneral and by examining their placements, one can understand
the deeperproject that this person is attempting by getting high
or gamboling, andwill be able to, with hope, redirect these energies towards
their moreeffective completion. When one encounters a 'wounded
healer', Chironmost definitely will open a portal and explanation for
these powers andgive context and focus to this state, - at least by my
interaction withthis archetype I can say this is so. This is not to say
that it can dothe opposite and find shaman by simply scanning the data
of charts. The'case study' that has attempted to establish markers
changes thedirection of Time's arrow. When we encounter a person,
this is a wavebreaking on the beach. When we examine the natal chart
we are staringinto a swell rising from the deep, and despite the illusion
of precision-acutely defined angles, degrees measured to the second,
thepredictability of periodic cycles- these are still images
taking shape,governed by the vectors of their origin, but in no way
determined bythem. In the end it is always in the person of the astrologer
that theseimages become synthesized into a truth.

I said in [9:31]:>> Can you explain how symbolism can filter out errors
and nonsense?

Steven responded in [9:32]:> only through experience of life first hand. we're very
fortunate> that those that have gone before us have left a record.
from there,> all one has to do is: experience (the verb)

Hmmmm. I've been experiencing life firsthand
for 58 years. I'vebeen pursuing astrology seriously for 32 years, for most
of that timeas a theorist. At what point do I suddenly see
the light? Bear inmind that at one time symbolism made sense in my own
experience, butI subsequently (think I) saw deeper. You haven't
responded to thequestion, how can symbolism filter out errors and nonsense?
You'vemerely expressed your faith in it, and in the notion
that sufficientexposure will lead to a realization of its validity.

Kevin said in [9:32]:> Scrub and scrub at the lens and no matter how hard
that you clean,> you will not clean away the fact that it is a
lens, and that as a> lens it draws into focus some elements and leaves out
of focus others.> All 'facts' are poured through a lens before they reach
us. It is> the 'distortion' of the perceived so as to attain a
state of meaning.> What you may describe as self-delusional symbolic interpretation,
I> would characterize a group-delusional symbolism, -an
ideology, an> (imagelogic)- and the 'truth' factor is resonance.
As an idea, method> or fact carries forth in time and its vibration lasts,
its truth is> attested to, but it is not a truth as you seem to imply,
that is the> hoped for removal of the glass through which we look.
It is the concert> of meaning with itself. The ideas and methods of Ptolemy
are not more> correct than what has occurred after them, but the
endurance of their> base tone, the structure of that astrology has proven
itself 'true' by> resonance. Beyond that one cannot speak, unless one
has recourse to> divine revelation, which can only be accepted or rejected.

You misread me if you think I'm after a lenseless
knowing. My aim isnot to dispense with a lens altogether, which I think
is impossible,but to replace the existing lens, or paradigm, with a
better one. Allyou offer in place of what you think I'm after is nice
sounding phraseswhose meanings are elusive. An idea's, method's,
or fact's vibration?The concert of meaning with itself? True by resonance?
If you havepoints to make, can you make them less ambiguously?

> As to the concept of chart comparisons of famous people
and transit> analysis, I have reservations about this latest passion
of objectifying> the chart and the rectification craze that is associated
with it. My> lord, they have rectified the chart of Christ to the
minute whose month> of birth is even contestable! The problem with rectification
pervades> even the simplest assessment of the famous. Without
a person to person> encounter with the client, it is impossible to know
the meaning of a> specific event and therefore how it would be reflected
in transits. As> much as we might be inclined to suppose that we know
that a marriage or> a blockbuster movie or a birth of a child means to
the overall life of a> person, these persons are souls and very often, as
with all of us, what> others think is significant is much less so and otherwise.
Such trolling> for significance ends up with reified meanings that
have taken us quite> far from the living human being and the vitality of
our art. We will end> up with a net full of shiny fish to be sorted, cooked
and canned and> very little understanding the beauty that lies below
our not so humble> boat.

Okay, so we're both dismayed by the silly excesses
of rectifiers, suchas rectifying the chart to the minute when you're not
even sure of thedate. That aside, I think rectification should
be possible in principle,evidently you don't. The principle is that we work
backwards from thelife as lived to the chart that best makes sense of it.
If we could see7-year obscure periods in a person's life, for instance,
and if theylined up at 29-year intervals, then the Saturn position
at the beginningof these periods would be where the Asc is. That
would tell us thebirthtime. Astrologers normally don't look for
patterns, though. Theytreat each event or characteristic in isolation.
The main problem withrectification, though, is symbolism. I've seen
different people comeup with diffeent times for the same person, and each
person's argumentmade perfect sense in terms of events and characteristics
fitting therectified chart. That's because with symbolism
you can explain a givenoutcome with different charts, or you can take the same
chart and explaindifferent events. Symbolism can't tell us we're
using the wrong chartor trying to justify the wrong event. Symbolistic
astrology in effectpredicts all events at all times, so the event that does
happen and thetime it happens are of course included. But an
astrology that predictsall things at all times actually predicts nothing at
all.

The client interaction is _applied_ astrology.
It's not the sourceof our knowledge, nor does it validate it. And
thanks to symbolismwe can't even tell if the client gives us the wrong birth
data or thewrong year for an event. We can learn from experience,
but not ifwe take each person, event, or characteristic in isolation.
We mightknow that a child changed at age 7, but that observation
can't tellus which transit, if any, is relevant. But we know
from developmentalpsychology that there are developments that occur in
virtually allchildren at that age. The way to account for something
that alwaysoccurs at 7 is via something else that always occurs
at 7, such astransiting Saturn opening square natal Saturn.
It's the _juxtaposition_of events and characteristics that enables us to arrive
at generalconclusions, so that we can (in principle) say in a general
way whatthe Saturn Return will mean in anyone's life.

> All of this fretting about self-delusion and science
as its corrector> to me is avoidable when we turn away from the abstraction
and face the> client. As long as methods are grounded in self-consistent,
regularly> applied practice, whose boundaries keep the astrologer
from introjecting> too much of his or her consciousness, meaning will
be brought forth from> a depth that can only be described as transpersonal.
The analysis of the> grounds of methods is significant because often it
can trace the> preservation of a 'truth' over the ages as it has taken
on various> forms, and hence tap us into the resonance of a larger
and deeper whole,> but in the end we still hold in our hands a lens, the
glass through> which we are compelled to look.

What we avoid if we fixate on individuals, events,
and characteristicsone at a time, in isolation, via symbolism, is the experience
of beingwrong and learning from it.

I wrote in [9:31]:>> For those who deny the relevance to astrology
of case studies and>> empirical observation in general, I wonder what you
offer in its place>> as a means of discovering astrological correspondences
while at the>> same time differentiating between sense and nonsense.
Rog, Kevin, how>> do you know that your interpretive statements are
anything other than>> self-deluding b.s.? Can you explain how symbolism
can filter out>> errors and nonsense?

Jane responded in [9:33]:> In originally proposing both case studies and an examination
of> the tradition in astrology, I had no intention of becoming
scientific> in the 19th century manner where too simple causation
falsifies> experience.

I didn't think otherwise. However, your original
statement didn'tread like a proposal, but like a _description_ of how
astrology isordinarily done. I merely pointed out that it _isn't_
done that way,but that it ought to be. If you think so, too,
then we're at leaston the same (epistemological) page.

> You are correct that cases can be misleading. That's
where conversation> becomes valuable.

I'm not sure in what contexts the conversation
you refer to shouldoccur, what kind of conversation you're talking about,
or how it'svaluable. Also, the part of my post you quote doesn't
mention cases,so I'm also not sure who you're agreeing with.

> An example is the too urgent search for the homosexual
marker. Over> and over an astrologer will find some indicator common
to every> homosexual client. Over and over it will turn out that
the clients also> share a vocation or avocation which is primary. The
"marker" for> homosexuality has so far always failed when applied
to other people's> clients or study base of charts.>> . . .>> Not very long ago, Neptune was considered a marker
for addiction. This> was operationally useful to astrologers working with
addicts because it> objectified the behavior patten -- placed it "out there"
away from core> personality. Unfortunately this correspondence did
not hold up. Every> non addict also has Neptune in the birth chart as well.
And astrologers> using Neptune as an indication for addiction could
not point to any> differentiation from one addict to the next that was
based on the> configurations of Neptune.>> We suspect that the addictive personality is a genetic
subset of humans> and no more visible in the birthchart than whether
the subject is a> volcano, a puppy, or a human.

"Marker", "indicator", and "signature" are different
ways of saying"correspondence", so I don't have a problem with the
notion per se.But there are two problems. One is that most astrologers
have a poorunderstanding of probability, so that the indicator of
a given traitor situation is a laundry list of which you only have
to have one, andwhich therefore fits virtually every human on the planet.
The otheris that looking for signatures for given characteristics
is approachingthe matter backwards. It assumes that astrology
is relevant to everyone of those things. Instead of asking _how_ astrology
explains a givenevent or characteristic, we should ask, What _does_ astrology
explain?We can answer that question by looking for order (in
human life) per se,and _then_ seeing if that order corresponds to some form
of planetaryorder. The patterns we _do_ find might turn out
to be relevant to_some_ of the things whose signatures astrologers have
looked for, butnot necessarily in anticipated ways. To sum up,
rather than askinghow or even if each of various outcomes is signified,
we should simplylook for evidence of order, and discover _what_ corresponds
with theplanets, and how.

> (Unlike psychologists and sociologists and speech therapists,
astrologers> find that removing names from case studies is not a
sufficient protection> for confidentiality. Thus we are driven to trust each
other when we say> that our cases do or do not confirm the pattern up
for discussion.)

We should _not_ trust each other that way.
Instead, we should relyon data, like published biographies, for instance, that
does not requireless than full disclosure.

> When Chiron was first discovered, symbolic astrologers
rushed to publish> theories of a wounded healer, and with effort, the
well-read astrologer> may find something of that kind. However astrologers
with cases see> Chiron differently. A reinterpretation is being discussed
out of sight> but those of us who do cases are pretty much agreed
with the results.> It's just a matter of wording now -- and who has the
time to publish.

You say "symbolic astrologers" as if there was
some other kind. I'dsay non-symbolistic astrologers are _extremely_ rare.
I know of onlytwo or three besides myself, and I'm not even sure of
that. I've seenso many astrologers who thought they were being empirical
-- basing theirinterpretations on observations -- who weren't, that
I suspect your ownpractice is more symbolistic and less effectively empirical
than yourealize. If I'm nistaken I'll apologize and rejoice.> The nature of the publishing business determines what
gets into print> -- and for astrology this has meant mass market simplicity.
Over the> long centuries the very few books kept in use tend
to be those of proven> value. But does it work today in our context? So those
of us who> actually practice, whether commerically or in private
settings, use the> three tools of the tradition, the case study, and conversation.

By conversation are you referring to the interaction
between theastrologer and client, or between astrologers comparing
insights andcases? The case study is a good tool if done right.
It almost neveris, though. Regarding conversation, it depends
on what you mean.Tradition, however, is likely to be more hindrance than
help. Whatwe "know" tends to get in the way of seeing what might
be. Whatwe should take from the tradition is simply the notion
that there'sa connection between planetary and earthly order.
We shouldn'tuse the handed-down meanings of the various factors,
nor should weassume that the factors for which we have handed-down
meanings areastrologically relevant. We should look for rhythms
and try in eachinstance to see what "it" is that's being rhythmic and
what if anyplanetary patterns it corresponds to.

> Is this perfect? No. Is this enough? Not always. Are
we misled?> Sometimes. Are we cosmic people? Yes. And perhaps if
astrology only> asserts, against common sense, that we are all cosmic
people, then> it has some value.>> Without being scientific, astrology can also be practical
in the hands> of the skillful. Or so they tell me. It's saved a situation
for me a> few times, by suggesting situation redescriptions and
behaviors that> otherwise would not have occured to anyone.>> Astrology is the applied cosmology of every age. It's
interesting that> it might be more.

As researchers we have further to go than most
of us realize. Asfor the skilled use of astrology, I think it's interpersonal
skillrather than astrology that's the key. People who
work as consultantshave (if they're good) an understanding of people.
It may be that,like psychics, our tacit knowledge ia accessed more easily
if we thinkwe're getting it from outside ourselves, from a crystal
ball or achart.

I wrote in [9:31]::>> For those who deny the relevance to astrology
of case studies and>> empirical observation in general, I wonder what you
offer in its place>> as a means of discovering astrological correspondences
while at the>> same time differentiating between sense and nonsense.
Rog, Kevin, how>> do you know that your interpretive statements are
anything other than>> self-deluding b.s.? Can you explain how symbolism
can filter out>> errors and nonsense?

Rog respoonded in [9:33]:> I've come full circle and once again think that
the "interpretive> statements" are indeed self deluding b.s. However,
I still seem to> be Leo, with a burdensome Capricorn Moon...and whatever
astrology> *is* remains a secret...:)

Could you clarify? Presumably you're not
admitting to being afool, so I wonder if you're using the term "interpretative
statements"in a figurative or ironic sense. Or perhaps what
you mean is thatyou don't make "interpretive statements". But you
"still seem to be"a Leo, so are you saying that we can't legitimately make
statements_about_ Leos that aren't self-deluding b.s., but that
we know it whenwe see it, that we can tell Leos from Capricorns even
if we can'tspell out what the difference is? (That, in Kuhnian
terms, would bea defensible position, whether or not it's valid.)
Or . . .

Dale

ps. Jane, it's nice to see I'm not the only one who edits
the subjectline to reflect the actual subject when replying to a
post in a digest.

Dale wrote: If you havepoints to make, can you make them less ambiguously?

The ambiguity of my points is perhaps due to the yardstick
you hold inyour hand. The difficulty lies at bottom with your attempt
to master theContingency. It is not masterable without the power of
narrative. If youfind this statement ambiguous, to me it is simply philosophical.
All arewriting narratives, even you. I wish you luck on your
better lens, butwhat are you going to do with what you see?

Kevin

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V9 #36

exegesis Digest Tue, 27 Jul 2004
Volume: 09 Issue: 037

In This Issue: #1: From: "tom" Subject: [e] the easiest
way to prove the validity of the astrology

From: "tom" <tomgemin@otenet.gr>Subject: [e] the easiest way to prove the validity
of the astrologyDate: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:59:55 +0300

Dear friends, hello!

I have found a wonderful site (you might already know
it), that I think itmight be the best way to prove the validity of the astrology.
The site is(www.astrofaces.com/astrofaces. You might also find it
aswww.habarbadi.com/astrofaces. You just go there, imput
the 3 basic signs(Solar, Lunar and Asc.) of a person, the face of whom
you want to see, andhere you are! You get a whole series of faces with that
exact determinedcombination!

I tried it with a lady that didn't beleive much in astrology,
I imput inthis site her Solar, Moon and Asc. sign and it came out
the face of a manhaving her (96%)exact characteristics!

Please try to enrich this site, by sending photoes of
various personsclose -ups (faces) that you are absolutely sure you know
their 3 basic signs(it doesn't matter if they are actors, pop stars e.t.c.)

Guys and gals, pleeze edit. Yesterday's digest
was 23k's (4 afterI edited out the extraneous material!), today's was 25k's.
Do we reallyneed to quote the _entire_ digest, including the ending
(and earlierendings!), the table of contents, the headers of individual
posts, andeverything previous posters have left in? Not only
is it messy, thisinfinite regress of quoting can be confusing. Good
list etiquette is toquote _just_ the material you're responding to, with
a line indicatingthe author and digest. (I don't mean to single
out just the two mostrecent posters. Many listers don't think to edit.)

In [9:25] Robert wrote:> . . . . . In answer to Kevin's question "how do you
logically connect> the influence of planetary cycles to the process of
evolutionary biology?"> I would argue that life is sensitive to constant patterns,
and the orbits> of the planets have been the most constant large scale
rhythm in our> cosmic eco-system - hence their place as the 'niche
of the world'.

I connect the dots similarly. I think we
have motivational rhythmsof different wavelengths, which happen to correspond
to those of theplanets. In [1:11] I suggested that life needs
rhythm in order to live,in which case it needs something to time itself with.
The planets, forpretty much the reason you give above, that they're longterm,
stablerhythms, are the most obvious means. Life has used
planetary periodsas temporal templates around which to organize itself.
As I noted then,"How can processes dovetail in their timing so as to
coordinate withone another unless they're organized in time?"

> . . . . . . .>> Based on these sources and others I believe that fractal
geometry provides> a good model for a scientific explanation of astrology,
grounded in a> logical connection between planetary cycles and evolutionary
biology.

Fractal geometry? How?

Dale

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V9 #39

exegesis Digest Sun, 01 Aug 2004
Volume: 09 Issue: 040

In This Issue: #1: From: Dale Huckeby Subject: [e] Re: the easiest
way to prove the validity of astrology

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 Thomas Gazis wrote:> I have found a wonderful site (you might already know
it), that I think> it might be the best way to prove the validity of the
astrology. The> site is (www.astrofaces.com/astrofaces. You might also
find it as> www.habarbadi.com/astrofaces. You just go there, imput
the 3 basic signs> (Solar, Lunar and Asc.) of a person, the face of whom
you want to see, and> here you are! You get a whole series of faces with
that exact determined> combination!

An intriguing site, but subjective judgments of
similarity don't proveastrology. (They don't even prove the validity
of Sun, Moon and Ascsign meanings.) The two people with my combination
didn't look at alllike me.

> I tried it with a lady that didn't beleive much in astrology,
I imput in> this site her Solar, Moon and Asc. sign and it came
out the face of a man> having her (96%) exact characteristics!

I really don't see how you could legitimately come
up with such aprecise number for such a subjective evaluation.
What did you do, makea list of features and then say, Yep, eyebrows the same,
mouth thesame, etc.? And then divide the "hits" by the total
number of featuresconsidered? In that case the percentage result
gives a false senseof precision when it actually means nothing at all.

> . . . . .>> This might be the best proof ever that astrology works!

It merely suggests that astrologers are not knowledgeable
about whatconstitutes proof. But welcome to Exegesis.
Glad to see new faceshere.